Legal Accountability For War Crimes: Analyzing International Tribunals And Jurisdictional Limits

Abstract

The prosecution of war crimes has been a cornerstone of international law since the Nuremberg Trials, aiming to hold individuals accountable for violations of international humanitarian law. This paper critically analyzes the effectiveness of international tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in prosecuting war crimes. The central research objective is to examine the jurisdictional challenges these tribunals face, including state sovereignty, enforcement limitations, and perceptions of selective justice. Using a doctrinal research methodology, the study explores case law, legal frameworks, and scholarly critiques to identify gaps and propose reforms. The findings highlight that the principle of complementarity, lack of effective enforcement mechanisms, and political biases significantly impede these tribunals' ability to deliver justice impartially. The paper advocates for enhanced enforcement capabilities, transparent case selection, and revisions to the complementarity principle as essential reforms to strengthen accountability for war crimes. The study underscores the need for a more robust and universally accepted framework to ensure justice for victims and uphold the credibility of international criminal justice mechanisms.